Hayes, Karen L., United States Magistrate Judge
The district court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses after finding that some of plaintiff's requests were relevant to the litigation but others were previously responded to by defendant.
Plaintiff served defendants with multiple requests for production of documents. Defendants objected to plaintiff's requests for a copy of the video surveillance system as well as copies of all rules and policies of defendants' detention center because it would require the disclosure of materials to an inmate that would be violative of the defendants' security privilege and also pose a risk of harm to detention center employees, inmates, and the public at large. The court found that plaintiff's requests were relevant to his claim and granted plaintiff's motion to compel. However, the court noted that it would perform an in camera inspection of the policy documents provided defendants submitted a memorandum addressing how disclosure of each particular section of the policies posed a security risk.
Plaintiff also requested copies of all rules, regulations, and policies of the defendants' detention center concerning religion or the denial thereof. Defendants argued that disclosure of these documents would not lead to admissible and relevant evidence. The court agreed and found that the requested information was not relevant to the plaintiff's claims and denied this part of plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff further requested documents that defendant argued were duplicative and were previously provided and filed under seal with the court. Plaintiff argued that some of the produced reports were fabrications. The court stated that:
Plaintiff certainly is entitled to challenge the accuracy of the statements set forth in these produced documents. His contention, however, presents a disputed issue of fact, not a discovery dispute. The court already has ordered defendants to produce all relevant documents in their possession—an ongoing obligation. Needless to say, defendants cannot produce documents that do not exist.
Accordingly, this part of plaintiff's motion was denied. The court noted that since plaintiff's motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part, the court was not inclined to assess costs and fees as this time and denied plaintiff's motion.
v.
WARDEN IKE BROWN, ET AL., Section P
Counsel
Jeffery A. Broussard, Angola, LA, pro se.Timothy R. Richardson, Freeman R. Matthews, Ronald Shane Bryant, Usry Weeks & Matthews, New Orleans, LA, for Warden Ike Brown, et al.